26 year old Iraq Veteran Gunned Down At Home - Page 54

Bullshit.

Alboe, no, there is no Federal Law that makes it a crime for a private citizen to own a bullet proof vest.
Some states have restrictions, but that isn't a Federal law, and Guerena was legally allowed to own the bullet proof vests in his posession.

"I would expect that we can all agree on some basic things.  It is good to obney the Constitution. It is good to practice the golden rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you), we need good honest service oriented police and good public support for them, we need an honest federal govt that works for citizens not against them and represents the interests of the citizens, not the large offshore controlled wall street banks and int'l corporations.  We do not want expensive foreign illegal, undeclared, unprovoked wars that are bankrupting our country.  We DO want our borders sealed and our mainland protected from drug cartels and illegal immigration.  We do not want our country stripped of all jobs and assets under nafta, cafta, gatt, & wto (so-called fre ttrade which is unfair trade and hjob and asset stripping in reality).  And we do not want our govt and intel trafficking in illegal drugs into the USA and high powered weapons to the drug cartels."


I agree 100% with the above paragraph.

"Bullshit."

This is awesome!  Instead of posting bullshit commentary or links to bullshit articles or bullshit videos, it saves everyone a lot of time if you just post the word, "bullshit."  Kudos for your efficiency! 

LMAO @ Keith.

Alboe, it is not illegal to have a bullet proof vest.  It is illegal to have a bullet proof during the commission of a felony.  It is a felony in my state to posses a bullet proof vest while committing a felony, such as robbery, home invasion, drug dealing, etc.  It is a separate felony charge.   

Slamdunc, in regards to the police statement that the dead Marine was holding a stolen assault rifle, allegedly taken 3 years ago from a burglary.  As a police officer you realize that in order to draw any conclusions that the Marine stole it, the weapon would have to be traced and testimony would have to be obtained from Guerena and others or he would have to implicated by credible witnesses or other corroborating evidence.  He's dead so he can't defend himself. 

He may have bought the gun not knowing it was stolen.  No claims his other guns were stolen.  He could have bought the gun at an open gun show where numbers are not traced.  He could have traded someone like his brother for the rifle. Any responsibel gun owner should have a bill of sale.

Having possession of a stolen gun and nothing else does not make the militarized trigger happy swat home invasion okay or the behavior of the police at the scene right after the shooting.  The stolen weapon was not mentioned in the "thin" affidavit supporting the search warrant.  If Guerena was away from home in the Marines on active duty when the gun was stolen, then he couldn't have stolen it.   

Bottom line, the case looks to me like poor police investigating, poor preparation of an affidavit (using a grouped affidavit is poor practice), bad handling of the shooting scene before and after, a wild orgy of firing by police during the home invasion, needless  apparent negligent killing of a neighbor hit by a loose round (manslaughter?), and Guerena's own poor judgement associating with family members who had been in serious trouble with the police.  Guerena's death may be the actual result in the final analysis caused by police tyranny and ineptitude in a residential area based on poor warrant imosed on a citizen war vet because of pre-judged "guilt by association".  A much safer and more effective arrest of Guerena could have been made by detectives during the day when Guerena was out and about.  A better model based on effective community policing and rock solid individual warrants is the solution.

Preston, this was a SEARCH warrant of the man's HOME. It was NOT an ARREST warrant for Guerena himself. That warrant had to be served and carried out on the actual property named in the warrant, not out on the street corner. Last time I checked, the cops don't call up and ask nicely for an appointment at a suspect's convenience either.

Mobjack, yes I realize it was a search warrant, but is was very weak and poorly supported, based on assumed guilt by association.  Not suggestive of "innocent until proven guilty" approach which requires "probable cause", for which there was none documented.

If he was a known buyer of a stolen weapon and had knowingly bought it, and there was good evidence, an arrest warrant should have been issued and he should have been tailed and arrested when "out and about" without the use of swat.

Preston, my point is, the simple fact that this was a search warrant of the man's home ends any argument that warrant could have been served elsewhere.

Guerena wasn't under investigation for arms dealing or trafficking stolen weapons. There's no way to prove or disprove if Guerena knew the gun was stolen when he bought it or not. The fact that the gun had been stolen only came to light AFTER the raid, the gun was confiscated and the numbers run. There was no mention of possible stolen weapons in the search warrant so that's not even an issue as far as the SWAT raid is concerned.

As far as an arrest warrant for anything, certainly he *could* have been arrested when he was out and about but to say he *should* have been is jumping to conclusions based solely on assumptions. That may or may not have been the best way to handle it. A moot point and a senseless argument. There was no arrest warrant for Guerena and there won't be one.

Mobjack, yes I see your point.  Well stated and a good one.  However, I suspect that there was insufficient probable cause justifying a militarized swat home invasion which is based on a surprise bust in through the front door. The affidavit is grouped and appears thin.  Best to have an affidavit for the individual and a specific well documented search warrant for the person.

In my city some of the biggest drug dealers were protected gang members (federal informants).  These guys were armed to the teeth but it was hands off for the local police.   This oozed probable cause because they were repeatedly seen openly selling drugs out in the open.  These guys were all well known to the police and easily identifiable.  There was no crackdown until a police officer was needlessly killed, then the company couldn't run anymore interference.  Last time I checked this kind of hands-off for dealer informants went on 10 years ago, but I doubt it has changed.  I think it is wrong overall and is used to keep the cartel monster fed.

Most swat raids are due to drugs and the justification is that a speedy intrusion can prevent evidence from being flushed and heavily armed drug gangs from reaching their weapons.  This whole drug situation is flimsy because if the crimes are not clear cut out in public or with actual witnesses who were harmed and have physical mark, then it is very difficult to make these cases and takes good police surveillance and camera work. Some of these cases can be handled by RICO against the whole distribution network if the police are not blocked by intel and compromised feds (which happens more than most want to admit). I don't have the answer but it seems obvious this isn't working in regard to the ilegal drugs and perhaps some of it needs to be decriminalized and the rest converted to a medical problem under medical supervision.  I do know that without high level got and intel corruption and open borders we would not have such a large drug problem.